Decision-Making Policy and Processes

Welcome to our Decision-making process!

At the inception of the Urban Coup, a consensus decision-making model was adopted by members as it provided an alignment with our values of mutual respect, of acknowledging the need for compromise and of committing to justice and equity.

Since then, we have had time to try and test it, accumulating a good experience of what is working and what isn't. The model has evolved and continues to do so as the group's needs and the project develop. Accordingly, the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Working Group has taken the task of adapting and reviewing the model so that it will clearly articulate our current objectives, practices and policies and maintain the principles of consensus decision making.

As such, this is a living document and will be reviewed regularly.

The basis for our model is a modified consensus that, in some cases, reverts to a majority vote of 75% as a last resort, or that provides non-consensus basis for well identified decisions due to their unique nature (e.g. the site selection process).

Getting acquainted with the vocabulary

Chair
The person chairing any meeting.
Decision Category
Classifies the decision as: Major (including Site-selection, Face-to-face and Urgent), Important or Minor.
Decision Facilitator
The person responsible for supporting a decision-making process, be it in a meeting or elsewhere. One Decision Facilitator is required at meetings where a decision-making process is under way.
Decision Log
A document that lists the decision title, proposer, decision category, decision date, results and links to the Proposal Package. This log should enable members to revisit decisions made and understand the background of the decision. The Decision Log also contains Minor decisions that the decider chooses to log. The Decision Log can be found in the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group as a notebook in our members website.
Decision Preferences

A. I agree

B. I can live with this

C. I trust the group to make this decision

D. I can't live with this the way it is

These are the general preferences for all decisions except for the Site Selection decisions.

Decision Proposal document
A simply written outline of what the proposal is, background information, the pros and cons, supporting information, contact details for the Proposer and any other relevant information.
Finance, Banking and Payments Working Group
A group that can approve minor expenditure under $750 or expenditure related to any project that has been approved via a Major Decision Proposal, according to the operating procedures of the Approval and Expenditure Policy.
Important Decision
A decision that may affect the running or reputation of the Urban Coup, but not significantly, and requires a declared, transparent and accountable process to be followed. Consensus is reached by a self-selected group of interested parties and not necessarily by the entire membership.
Major Decision

A decision that will significantly affect the running, organisation, reputation, design or development of the Urban Coup.

Decisions related to legal matters, membership, general policies, site and structures are categorised as Major Decisions.

Financial decisions over $750 are Major Decisions except when made or approved by the Finance, Banking and Payments Working Group, e.g. under the Approval and Expenditure Policy.

Sub-categories of a Major Decision:

Urgent decision: For decisions required to be made in a short time frame. A minimum of nine days and more rigorous notifications to the membership are required.

Face-to-face decision: For decisions requiring in-depth discussion, a dedicated workshop/meeting is required.

Site selection decision: For decisions regarding the selection of a site. This is in practice a two stage decision: one that relates to the land and the second, to the concept design associated with a given site. It requires a poll, which is considered passed if a specific threshold number is reached.

Major Decision Poll
A poll on the internal website that enables full members to lodge their decision preference in response to a decision proposal. Consensus decisions by the entire membership are made this way as are Site Selection decisions. Responses are collated by the Decision Facilitator and reported back to members.
Minor Decision
A decision that does not significantly affect the overall running or reputation of the Urban Coup. This type of decision is made by a working group without extensive consultation with the Urban Coup membership. These decisions will often be implementations of specific matters, the purpose of which may have previously been agreed through a Major or Important decision. Minor decisions may also be made about routine operational matters relating to the work of a working group. Minor decisions may also be used to guide work in preparation for an Important or Major decision.
Proposal Package

A proposal to the Urban Coup to change, introduce or initiate something. The Proposal Package should contain sufficient information for a member to understand the proposal and the reason behind it; the intention and desired outcome of the proposal; the pros and cons of the proposal and the steps for implementing the proposal (if necessary).

Where relevant, a Proposal Package should contain:

- Decision Proposal document (using the Decision Proposal template)

- Response to Proposal document(s)

- Any additional versions of the Decision Proposal document

- The outcome document(s)

These inclusions may be in the form of links from the proposal document or other means as long as they are clear and easy to follow.

Proposer
The person, whether as an individual or as a group representative, who is responsible for presenting the proposal.
Proxy
The authority or document representing someone’s opinion, will or set of instructions which authorises a proxy holder or substitute to act accordingly and may be used in voting or during a regular meeting. (See proxy forms at Appendices 4 and 5).
Regular meeting
The scheduled fortnightly (or other regularly scheduled) meeting of the whole Urban Coup membership (i.e. not working group meetings, special general meetings, annual general meetings, workshops etc.)
Responses to Proposal document

Document created by the Decision Facilitator that records relevant additional pros and cons, concerns, questions, respective answers and clarifications or other matters that are not covered in the Decision Proposal document. The purpose is to present any responses to a proposal in one place, without having to search through several sets of minutes or similar.

Either a new response to each proposal document, or one central page for responses should be maintained by the Decision Facilitator, whichever is practical given the length and complexity of the proposal and its versions.

Members can add to this document after the first meeting at which the proposal is tabled.

Site-specific decision
A decision that relates to a specific site that has been selected for development. Only those member households who have indicated a commitment to buy into that particular site have the right to vote on a site specific decision. The decision category still needs to be determined at the start of the process, and then the decision designated as site specific, e.g. “Major Decision – Detailed Design for 23 Chicken Street – [Site-specific Decision]”.
Urgent Decision Group

Pre-established group of six (or more) full members.

This group must be convened to consider, refine and recommend any Urgent Decision proposal. All full members are invited to participate in this process. A minimum of four full members must participate at this meeting (in person). The four members need not be part of the pre-established group.

Decision-making Principles

Modified-Consensus Decision Making

The Urban Coup has decided that consensus decision making is the model upon which decisions will be made. Traditionally, a consensus is achieved when everyone agrees. Our model intends to stress the participatory process of building a proposal taking into account different members’ point of view. It also recognises that unanimous agreement for every decision may be difficult to achieve. We complement the process with decision rules based on a super-majority in certain cases and specific thresholds in others. This is thus a modified-consensus model of decision-making.

Our model is intended to maximise the opportunities of living or working in a group environment. It provides a space for everyone to have a voice, is cooperative and inclusive, supports creative thinking by engaging everyone in problem solving and decision-making so that all group members have the opportunity to participate in reaching an acceptable decision. It thus moves away from more traditional decision-making models and works against win/lose dichotomies and the risks of “tyranny of the majority”.

Consensus requires members to understand the issue at hand, make decisions in good faith and engage in the process to identify solutions. The decisions made through this model may not be optimal for every member, they may not even be what any one person thinks is the optimal solution for the group; however decisions made through this model should be the best decision that everyone can agree to. By everyone agreeing, satisfaction and acceptance of the outcome is maximised.

Every member of the Urban Coup has the right and the responsibility to have input into decisions that affect them and the Urban Coup. This does not mean that all decisions require the input and agreement of every member. Given the number of members involved in the Urban Coup, the amount of decisions to be made in a short space of time, our reliance on technology to communicate and the difficulty in getting every member to be able to attend a meeting, it is agreed that not all types of decisions need to achieve consensus by the entire group. In these circumstances, the principles of consensus are to be upheld (see Determining Decision Category and Process). Those involved in making the decision are those who identify themselves as being interested in the decision or decision outcome for any reason; the whole group has access to all relevant information.

Different types of decisions

The Urban Coup's model divides decisions into three significance levels: Major, Important and Minor.

Major decisions, in principle, must be made through consensus of the entire Coup (for exceptions, see: Site-selection decisions and the last resort of Major Decisions); Important decisions can be made through consensus of self-identified interested parties; and Minor decisions can be made by a group which has been delegated responsibility for a particular area or task (generally a working group). Any decision may be escalated if identified as necessary or beneficial by any member and as assessed by the Decision Making and Conflict Resolution Group.

Determining Decision Category and Process

There are six categories of decision-making, determined by the level of significance:

Major decision

  • General
  • Urgent
  • Face-to-face / workshop
  • Site selection

Important

Minor

Additionally, if the decision relates to a site that has been selected for development, the decision will be a Site Specific one, e.g. Urgent (Site Specific) and this will have an impact on who can vote on those, for more details see Voting Rights below.

The decision tree below shows the steps for determining the appropriate category and process.

Flow chart indicating the way to determine the type of decision to apply. It's based on questions.
Determination of the decision category

It starts with an idea or a need to introduce, change or initiate something.

Will it affect significantly the running, organisation, reputation, design or development?

  • Yes
  • No

Does it relate to legal matters, membership, general policies, site and structure?

  • Yes
  • No

Is it a new financial arrangement or modification of an existing one exceeding defined thresholds?

  • Yes
  • No

Does it have an small effect on our organisation or reputation and/or need a transparent, accountable process of decision?

  • Yes
  • No

Is it urgent?

  • Yes
  • No

Is it about selecting a site?

  • Yes
  • No

Does it need a workshop (or a face-to-face setting)?

  • Yes
  • No

Decision categories:

General major decision process

Urgent decision process

Face-to-face / workshop decision process

Site-selection decision process

Important decision process

Minor decision process

 

Note: if the decision relates to a statutory matter, such as changing the Rules of the Urban Coup Inc., the decision needs to be passed through a Special General Meeting or as specified in the Act, after having been passed through a Major Decision Process.

Major Decision

A Major Decision is a decision that will significantly affect the running, organisation, reputation, design and development of the Urban Coup. Decisions relating to legal matters, membership, general policies, site and structures are categorised as a Major Decision. Financial expenditure decisions over $750 are a Major Decision except when made or approved by the Finance, Banking and Payments Working Group e.g. under the Approval and Expenditure Policy.

Criteria

A decision falls into this category if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

  • Significantly impacts Urban Coup either on its physical structure (design, landscape, environment -including animals- or buildings) or on its organisation or its reputation.
  • Implies an important financial commitment (refer to Financial Commitments below for details).
  • Has a legal nature.

Examples

  • Policies, Processes and Procedures affecting the organisation or the running of the Urban Coup.
  • Allocation of money, investments or expenditures exceeding either the ad-hoc limit of $ 750 per individual request or the approved budget. Any other significant financial commitment.
  • Legal arrangements or agreements such as Partnerships or contracts.
  • Final design of the site.

Financial Commitments

Decisions requiring the expenditure of more than $750 are classified as major decisions and will require a Major Decision Proposal to be prepared and an Expenditure Approval Application Form to be completed for individual items of expenditure [See Expenditure Policy and application form on internal website].
An annual budget will be prepared before the commencement of each financial year to cover minor expenditure for items below $750 and to an annual total, as agreed by major decision each year.

A working group can propose a budget for its activities and, if over $750, this would require an Major Decision Proposal and Expenditure Approval Application Form as above.

Urgent decision

This is a major decision that must be made in a short time frame. It allows a decision to be made in as little as nine days and requires more rigorous notifications.

It also requires the convening of the Urgent Decision Group whose role is to consider the urgent decision proposal and helping the Proposer refine it, making it ready for poll. This is a group of six full members that ensures at least a minimum of four members can make themselves available (barring exceptional or emergency circumstances) for urgent decision processes and meetings.

Criteria
A decision falls into this category if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

  • Significantly impacts Urban Coup and has to be made quickly.
  • Has a financial or legal nature and has to be made quickly.

Examples

  • Urgent budget for a project.
  • Any major decision with a pressing deadline.

Face-to-face / Workshop decision

This is a major decision that requires in-depth discussion and for which a dedicated workshop/meeting (or a session during a particular workshop) has been arranged.

The aim is for the decision to be made during the meeting.

Criteria

This category of decision meets at least one of the following criteria:

  • Significantly impacts Urban Coup and requires a workshop.
  • Has a financial or legal nature and needs a discussion.

Examples

  • Urgent budget for a project.
  • Any major decision that requires in-depth discussion.

Site-selection decision

This is two-stage process dealing with the selection of a site and the approval of the concept design for a provisionally selected site. It is not based on consensus or on majority, but rather on reaching a threshold number of fifteen households committed to buying in.

The reason for this particular category and process is that it is assumed that no site will ever be desirable and possible for every household to buy into at any one time.

In addition to that, we need to consider that what is important for getting the development under way is the critical mass of households, not the proportion of households who are committed to making it happen.

A first major decision is proposed for the land only (MD1). If the threshold is reached, after it is completed, a second decision is submitted for the concept design (MD2) related to that particular site. If the threshold is not reached for the first decision, the second one will not take place. To have selected a site, both decisions must reach the defined threshold.

For this type of decision, only one vote per household will count towards the threshold.

Criteria
This category of decision meets at least one of the following criteria:

  • Determines the site.
  • Determines the concept design associated with a selected site.

Examples

  • Major Decision 1: MD1 or Site selection 1 – Land.
  • Major Decision 2: MD2 or Site selection 2 – Concept Design.

Important Decision

An important decision is a decision that may affect the running of the Urban Coup and requires a declared, transparent and accountable decision to be made. Consensus is made by a self-selected group of interested parties and not necessarily by the entire membership. Members outside this group will be kept informed and can choose to have input.

Criteria
This category of decision meets at least one of the following criteria:

  • Has an impact, but not a significant one, on the running and organisation of the Urban Coup.
  • Requires a declared, transparent and accountable decision to be made.

Examples

  • Project proposals that may require time and input but not money.
  • Proposals to initiate or determine or amend the scope and purpose of a working group, where this does not significantly affect the running or organisation as a whole.
  • Communication media / processes / strategies.

Minor Decision

A minor decision is a decision made by a working group without extensive consultation with the Urban Coup membership. These decisions will usually relate to the routine operational matters of a working group or implementation of specific matters, the purpose of which has previously been agreed through a Major or Important decision. They are decisions that do not significantly affect the overall running of the Urban Coup or its reputation. Minor decisions may also be used to guide work in preparation for an important or major decision.
Criteria

    This category of decision meets at least one of the following criteria:

    • Does not affect the running, organisation or the reputation of the Urban Coup.
    • Does not involve, amend or require any additional financial investment or legal responsibility on the part of the Urban Coup (than that previously agreed to in a Major Decision process).
    • Will not significantly affect the physical design, landscape, environment or buildings within the Urban Coup.
    • Follows an implementation of a Major or Important Decision already made.

    Examples

    • Changing the plan of savings (term deposits), which are under the jurisdiction of the Finance, Banking and Payments Working Group.
    • Type of T-shirts for the Sustainable Living Festival as a part of a larger project corresponding to our Recruitment strategy and issued with a budget through a Major Decision.
    • A working group may decide to invest time and energy in investigating something, which then may become the subject of a major or important decision process. There may be minor decisions in guiding this work up to the point of the proposal.

    Voting rights

    In addition to determining the category, we must define whose decision preferences count towards a decision.

    For decisions related to a specific site that has been acquired for the first development of Urban Coup, the only members whose decision preferences count are those who have declared a commitment to buy into that site (either through voting A in the most recent applicable MD1/MD2 [Major Decision 1 or 2], joining the Dwelling Purchase List, or through a subsequent formal commitment). These are Site-specific decisions.

    For all other decisions, the appropriately submitted decision preference of any full member (or member household in the case of site selection and last resort major decisions) of the Urban Coup count towards the outcome.

    Decision category (and subcategory)

    Voting rights

    Major

    General

    All full members

    (in the case of last resort: only one per each full member household)

    Urgent

    All full members

    Face to Face

    All full members

    Site-selection

    All full member households (one per household)

    Important

    Any interested members>

    Minor

    Working or other group

     

    General Process for Decision-making for the Proposer

    All decisions and polls by The Urban Coup Inc. must be made in accordance with this current policy, apart from processes specified in the Rules for the Urban Coup Inc., which apply only in specific circumstances such as statutory matters (e.g. alterations to the Rules), at General Meetings (Annual and Special) and meetings of the Committee of the Urban Coup or specific committees such as a Disciplinary Sub-committee.

    In those cases, changes must be made using the processes outlined in this policy and also be subsequently and promptly approved at a Special or Annual General Meeting. The need for this extra approval must be noted in the Decision Proposal.

    The process involves six phases:

    1. Identify the issue at hand

      In brief: Do your homework.

      • There are a few questions to be asked in this investigative step:
      • What is the need, the problem or the opportunity for improvement?
      • What are you trying to achieve?
      • Is someone in the Urban Coup already working on this?
      • Are there good models in other groups or organisations?
      • Has a decision been made about this already and you are seeking to amend it?
      • Speak to other members: what are the general feelings?
      • Raise the matter in a regular meeting to enable a broad discussion of the issue at hand from the start when possible.
      • Take the opportunity to think as broadly as possible to identify, clarify and specify the issue and then brain-storm possible solutions. Use our resources (i.e. members) to achieve this.
    2. Follow the check list

      A series of check lists have been put in place to help you to follow this process. Use them!

    3. Identify the 'Decision Category'

      Is it a Major, Important or Minor decision? Is it Urgent? Does it require a workshop or is it related to the selection of a particular site?

      To identify the decision significance, see Determining Decision Category and Process above.

      Raise it at a regular meeting or speak with the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Working Group.

      Determining the decision category should be documented either in the minutes of a regular meeting or on a working group blog post within the internal website (with notifications to members outside the group). This helps us to keep learning, understanding and recording our process.

    4. Go through the processes

      There are six processes, one for each of the categories (and sub-categories):

      Major decision

      • General
      • Urgent
      • Face-to-face / workshop
      • Site selection

      Important

      Minor

    5. Report back

      With help from the Decision Facilitator, report the outcome of the decision in the Decision Log (Minor decision logging at the discretion of the Decision Facilitator) and at the next regular meeting, ensuring that relevant information is available to the Urban Coup community.

    6. Implement the decision!

      This should be in accordance with the procedure as detailed in the Proposal Package, including any required evaluation of the outcome.

    Detailed Decision-making Process

    Major Decision Process

    Remember: a Major Decision significantly impacts Urban Coup and/or has a financial or legal nature. This process involves 14 steps.

    At the start of this process, it is assumed that phases 1 to 4 of the general process [see General Process for Decision-making for the Proposer above], which include an appropriate level of discussion/research, have been undertaken prior to the Proposal being put forward.

    1. The Proposer completes a Proposal Template (see end of the document) and notifies the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group that a Major decision will be required shortly. A Decision Facilitator will be nominated by the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group to assist coordinating the process.

    2. The Proposer uses the relevant Decision Process Check list template to document the process for this proposal. The Proposer should request support from the Facilitator if necessary.

    3. The Proposer requests from the Chair(s) the date of the next meeting at which there is time to discuss the proposal. The Proposer notifies members via a new entry in the internal website that a proposal is to be tabled at the meeting on the relevant date and provides the link to the Proposal. The entry (and corresponding notifications) should be titled “Major Decision – [Proposal Title] – Site specific (if applicable)” or similar and should note when the proposal will be discussed. They should be sent at least seven days before the meeting.

    4. The Proposer (or Decision Facilitator at request of the Proposer) will endeavour to ensure that the proposal is on the agenda, with the link to the Proposal, at least three days (72 hours) before the meeting (but this is not required for the meeting to go ahead and count as a discussion as long as the proposal has been posted as per 3 above). Urban Coup members who are interested in the proposal are expected to attend the meeting to engage in the discussion.

    5. If a member who wants to contribute to the discussion is unable to attend the relevant meeting, it is expected that (s)he will inform another member who is attending of his/her views to act as a proxy or provide his/her comments in writing via the website, which will be reviewed during the meeting, or to the Chair or Decision Facilitator, to present to the group for consideration. To submit a proxy, members should use the forms at Appendices 4 and 5.

    6. n the meeting:

      1. The Proposer explains the proposal and answers any questions to clarify the proposal.

      2. A discussions of the proposal is then facilitated by the Chair or Decision Facilitator. The Chair or Decision Facilitator or Proposer or proxy will also present any material supplied by individuals unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of this discussion is to negotiate and note amendments required to be made to the proposal in order to reach consensus. The minute taker takes standard minutes. The Decision Facilitator will ensure that the minute-taker has captured all necessary points for members not present to understand the directions taken.

      3. If a concern that is raised is complex or the person raising the concern considers that (s)he is unable to accurately articulate his/her concerns at the meeting, (s)he can nominate to reply to the proposal on the internal website within a specified time frame agreed reasonable by the group at the meeting.

      4. Action items are to be recorded in the minutes (e.g. that Person X is to submit concerns within the next week or that the Proposer is to amend the proposal to include a particular element).

      5. The standing action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate the questions, responses, concerns and additional pros and cons raised and include them in the Proposal Package (as a separate document or blog entry titled “Responses to Proposal X”). If no additional points were raised, it should be noted in the proposal that no additional points were raised at meeting on x date" (or similar).

      6. If the only action item is for the Decision Facilitator to collate and add the responses, the Decision Facilitator should ask the attendees: “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon in its current form?” or “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon once the additional comments and/or minor matters are addressed/amended/included?

        Note: This is not making the decision about the proposal but is to identify whether the proposal is ready to be decided on or requires tabling for further discussion.

      7. The outcome of this question will be recorded by the minute taker in the minutes as directed by the Decision Facilitator.

    7. The Proposal Package, including the “Responses to Proposal”, is to be on the internal website for no less than seven days (members may request a longer time period to consider the proposal and the Decision Facilitator will amend the timeline if this is agreed reasonable at regular meeting, or by the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Working Group). If people want to respond via the internal website to the proposal, a summary of their pros, cons or concerns should be put in the “Responses to Proposal”. The internal website or other communication tools should be used during this period to further explore or discuss the issue to identify resolutions or opportunities.

    8. Actions, if any, are to be undertaken. If the proposal itself is to change significantly (as agreed by the group present), the original proposal should be clearly marked as “No Longer Current” and a new version should be produced with the amendments. The original is to be kept as part of the package so that everyone can follow the progress. Alternatively, minor modifications may be documented by tracking changes in the same post / document or generally on the internal website if more practical and easy to understand.

    9. If the proposal was amended or further discussion was required, the process returns to Step 3. This includes a new meeting and a Proposal Package with the original version and its response. The new version will be also in the new proposal template with a separate “Responses to Proposal X Version 2” document arising from it, if applicable. The Decision Facilitator is to present the responses submitted via the Responses to Proposal if the people are not personally present at the meeting. If the proposal is ready to be decided (i.e. no one is seeking further discussion), then the Proposer is to coordinate with the Decision Facilitator to have a Major decision poll put up on the internal website. Note that at least one discussion at a regular (or special) meeting of the Urban Coup needs to have occurred before a poll can proceed.

    10. Major decision poll function

      1. The poll entry has to clearly state the opening and closing date for decision preferences to be submitted. This period must be at least seven days.

      2. All members are expected to register their preference (one per member). The options are:

        A. I agree

        B. I can live with this

        C. I trust the group to make this decision

        D. I can't live with this the way it is

      3. The Proposer is to notify members via a new entry on the internal website that a proposal is to be responded to and provide the links to the Proposal Package and the Major decision poll. These notifications should include the following information: that it is a poll for a Major Decision, Proposal Title, when the poll closes.

      4. A reminder will be sent out by the Decision Facilitator two to three days prior to the closing of the poll to members who have not yet registered their preference.

      5. After the poll has closed, any member who has not registered a preference will be assumed to have selected the option that indicates that they trust the group to make the decision ('C').

      6. The proposal will be considered “agreed to” if nobody registers a 'D'.

    11. Reporting the outcome

      1. The Decision Facilitator is to report the outcome of the poll on the website and at the next regular meeting.

      2. The Decision Facilitator will also record the outcome of the poll in the Decision Log.

    12. If agreement was not reached, the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution working group or Decision Facilitator will facilitate a process between the member(s) who registered a 'D' and the Proposer to clarify and resolve any outstanding issues and revise the proposal so that it is acceptable to all parties. The aim will be to complete this process within seven days.

      1. If this process does not result in a revised proposal acceptable to all parties then the process reverts to Step 3.

      2. If this process does result in a proposal acceptable to all parties, the revised proposal will be posted online for three days to allow members to comment on it, suggest changes, and indicate whether it is ready to go to poll. A short (3 day) confirmation poll will then be held to test for consensus on the revised proposal.

      3. If the poll does not establish a consensus, or if members indicate that more discussion of alternative solutions is required, then the process returns to Step 3.

      4. If consensus cannot be reached after two polls (and discussions between), the third poll is to be held as a majority vote (of 75% or more) rather than consensus. The same roles and responsibilities of the Proposer and Decision Facilitator as detailed in Step 8 are to be followed. Differences from Step 8 are as follows:

    13. Members are limited to registering one preference per household (i.e. households to identify their preference as a whole and register this in response to the poll via their household representative/unit membership holder).

      1. The proposal will be considered “agreed to” if less than 25% of households register a 'D'.

      2. The proposal will be abandoned if 25% of full member households or more register a 'D'. The proposal should not be resubmitted again for at least two months after it has been abandoned.

      3. The outcome is to be reported on the internal website, in the Decision log and at the next regular meeting.

    14. The implementation of the decision is as described in the proposal.

     

    Urgent Major Decision Process

    This particular kind of Major Decision requires a quick approach and the support of the Urgent Decision Group. This process includes 10 steps.

    At the start of this process, it is assumed that phases 1 to 4 of the general process (see General Process for Decision-making for the Proposer above), which includes an appropriate level of discussion/research, have been undertaken prior to the Proposal being put forward, recognising that this may have been done in less depth because of the tight time frame.

    1. The Proposer completes a Proposal Template and notifies the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group that an Urgent Major Decision will be required shortly. A Decision Facilitator will be nominated by the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group to assist in coordinating the process. The Proposer will follow the Decision Proposal check list and Proposal template, with assistance from the Facilitator if required.

    2. The Decision Facilitator arranges a meeting with the Urgent Decision Group, ensuring at least four full members of the Urban Coup can attend. These four members may include any member present and participating (e.g. the chair and/or Decision Facilitator may count towards the four). A Decision Facilitator must be present. The Facilitator also notifies all members of the Urban Coup of this meeting, and what the proposal is about, via the internal website and by text or phone, with at least three days' notice and invites them to participate.

    3. The Proposer notifies members via internal website of the proposal that is to be tabled at this special meeting on the relevant date and provides the link to the Proposal Package. These notifications should be titled “Urgent Major Decision – [Proposal Title]” or similar and should be sent at least three days before the meeting.

    4. Members who are interested in the proposal are expected to attend the meeting to engage in the discussion. If a member who is interested or wants input is unable to attend the relevant meeting, (s)he has the opportunity to inform another member who is attending of his/her views to act as a proxy or provide his/her comments in writing to the Chair to present to the group for consideration at the meeting (this may be via the internal website). To submit a proxy, members should use the forms Appendices 4 and 5.

    5. In the meeting:

      1. The Proposer explains the proposal and answers any questions to clarify the proposal.

      2. A discussion of the proposal is then facilitated by the Chair or the Decision Facilitator. The Chair or Decision Facilitator or Proposer or proxy will also present any material supplied by individuals unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of this discussion is to consider and refine the proposal, to negotiate and note amendments recommended to be made to the proposal to facilitate the reaching of consensus. The Decision Facilitator will ensure that the minute-taker has captured all necessary points for members not present to understand the directions taken, including clarifications, concerns and any additional pros and cons (that are not already listed in the proposal).

      3. The standing action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate the questions, responses, concerns and additional pros and cons raised and include them in the Proposal Package (as a separate document or blog entry titled “Responses to Proposal X”). If no additional points were raised, the document or blog entry should still be created with “Nil additional points raised as a result of discussion at meeting on x date" (or similar). This must be posted within 24 hours of the meeting, and preferably directly after the meeting.

      4. If the only action item is for the Decision Facilitator to collate and add the responses, the Decision Facilitator should ask the attendees: “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon in its current form?” or “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon once the additional comments and/or minor matters are addressed/amended/included?" The outcome of this question will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator.

      5. If there is consensus that the proposal is ready to be decided upon in its current form, or with minor amendments/inclusions, then the Decision Facilitator tests for consensus by asking everyone present to register their preference (A, B, C or D) verbally or by a show of hands. The outcome of this will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator. [See also Step 8.6 below.]

    6. The results of this discussion and the Proposal Package, including the “Responses to Proposal”, are to be on the internal website for no less than three days if consensus was not reached during the meeting. Discussions via the website and/or additional special meetings, with the same requirements as the initial meeting (at least four members attending and notice of three days), should take place in order to reach consensus if possible. If consensus was reached at the initial meeting, the proposal can go immediately to poll for a period of no less than three days and no more than seven.

    7. Actions, if any, are to be undertaken. If the proposal itself is to change significantly in meaning or effect (as agreed by the group), the original proposal should be clearly marked as “No Longer Current” and a new version should be produced with the amendments or changes must be made noticeably (e.g. highlighting) - whatever is clearest. The original is to be kept as part of the package so that everyone can follow the progress.

    8. Major decision poll function

      1. The poll entry has to clearly state the opening and closing date for decision preferences to be submitted. This period must be at least three days.

      2. All members are expected to register their preference (one per member). The options are:

      3. The Proposer is to notify members via the internal website that a proposal is to be responded to and provides the links to the Proposal Package and the Major decision poll. These notifications should be titled “Urgent Major Decision – [Proposal Title] – Poll closes [date]” or similar."

      4. A reminder will be given via the website, and by text or phone by the Decision Facilitator 24 hours prior to the closing of the poll to members who have not yet registered their preference (it is the responsibility of members to heed and respond to messages).

      5. After the poll has closed, any member who has not registered a preference will be assumed to have indicated that they trust the group to make the decision (C).

      6. The Decision Facilitator is to record the outcome of the poll on the Decision Log, report the tally on the website and at the next regular meeting.

      7. The proposal will be considered “agreed to” if nobody registers a 'D'. If not agreed, and the decision is still applicable given the time elapsed, the process can be started again with an amended proposal and new meetings and discussions.

    9. If consensus cannot be reached after two polls (and discussion between), the third poll is to be held as a majority vote rather than consensus. The same roles and responsibilities of the Proposer and Decision Facilitator as detailed in Step 8 are to be followed. Differences from Step 8 are as follows:

      1. Members are limited to registering one preference per household (i.e. households to identify their preference as a whole and register this in response to the poll via their household representative/unit membership holder).

      2. The proposal will be considered “agreed to” if less than 25% of households register a 'D'.

      3. The proposal will be abandoned if more than 25% register a 'D'. The proposal should not be resubmitted again for at least two months after it has been abandoned.

    10. Implementation of the decision as per the proposal.

    Face to Face / Workshop Decision Process

    This is a major decision that requires or would benefit from an in-depth discussion, and so a specific workshop or meeting is to be arranged. This process aims to make the decision at the end of the meeting / workshop / discussion (subject to a confirmation period).

    At the start of this process, it is assumed that phases 1 to 4 of the general process (see General Process for Decision-making for the Proposer above), which include an appropriate level of discussion/research, have been undertaken prior to the Proposal being put forward.

    1. The Proposer completes a Proposal Template and uses the relevant check list to record the process, with assistance from the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Working Group, if required.

    2. The Proposer notifies the members via the internal website of the proposal that is to be tabled at the meeting/workshop on the relevant date and provides the link to the Proposal. These notifications should be titled “Face to face / Workshop Decision – [Proposal Title]” or similar and be sent at least two weeks before the meeting, to give adequate time for all concerns, ideas and options to be canvassed so as to give the best chance for a consensus decision.

    3. Members who are interested in the proposal are expected to attend the meeting to engage in the discussion.

    4. If a member is unable to attend the relevant meeting, it is expected that (s)he arrange for another member who is attending to act as a proxy or provide his/her comments to the Chair to present to the group for consideration at the meeting (this may be via the internal website). To submit a proxy, members should use the forms at Appendices 4 and 5.

    5. During the meeting, members can take phone calls from other members whose proxies they hold, if the absent member wishes to make such an arrangement at their own instigation and cost (though not if the proxy holder is the chair, who may hold multiple proxies and should not be expected to field multiple enquiries).

    6. A proxy cannot be a 'D' unless the member concerned has flagged their concerns in advance and has worked with the proposer and the group to try to reach a proposal they can live with (but has not been able to). In this case the member should make every effort to come to the meeting or be in touch by phone during the meeting. If this is not possible, the member commits to working towards consensus with the proposer and the group after the workshop/meeting when new proposed solutions may have been raised.

    7. All members are expected to work towards a consensus position.

    8. It is the responsibility of proxies to present the views of the person(s) they are proxy for and act according to the wishes of that person(s) to the best of their understanding. It is also their responsibility to alert the group if they find the discussion has moved on or changed to the extent that they feel they no longer know how the member would wish them to act for them.

    9. If members are on extended holidays or out of contact for other reasons, and if they cannot access email or the web, they need to take responsibility for contacting a member in order to be informed of any decisions in process.

    10. During the meeting:

      1. The Proposer explains the proposal and answers any questions to clarify the proposal.

      2. A discussion of the proposal is then facilitated by the Chair or Decision Facilitator. The Chair or Decision Facilitator or Proposer or proxy will also present any material supplied by individuals unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of this discussion is to negotiate and note amendments required to be made to the proposal in order to reach consensus. The Minute taker takes standard minutes.

      3. The standing action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate and include in the Proposal Package the concerns and additional pros and cons raised (as a separate document or blog entry titled “Responses to Proposal X”). If no additional points were raised, the document or blog entry should still be created with “Nil additional points raised as a result of discussion at meeting on x date" (or similar). This must be posted within 24 hours of the meeting, and preferably directly after the meeting.

      4. If the only action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate and add the responses, the Decision Facilitator should ask the attendees: “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon in its current form?” or “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon once the additional comments and/or minor matters are addressed/amended/included?" The outcome of this question will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator.

        Note: This is not making the decision about the proposal but is to identify whether the proposal is ready to be decided on or requires tabling for further discussion.

      5. If there is consensus that the proposal is ready to be decided upon in its current form, or with minor amendments/inclusions, then the Decision Facilitator tests for consensus by asking everyone present to register their preference (A, B, C or D) verbally or by a show of hands (including the proxies). The outcome of this will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator.

      6. The options for expressing preferences are:

        A. I agree

        B. I can live with this

        C. I trust the group to make this decision

        D. I can't live with this the way it is

    11. The Proposal Package, including the “Responses to Proposal”, are to be on the internal website for no less than seven days as a confirmation period.

    12. If a member who was not present feels that the outcome was one that was not flagged as a possibility, that they didn't anticipate from the discussion and they really feel that they can't live with it they can take the opportunity of the seven day confirmation period to raise their concerns with the proposer and the whole group and actively work with the proposer during that period to negotiate amendments that would mean everyone could live with it. This might necessitate calling a special meeting. Other members will have the same right to raise concerns with any new outcome if they feel the new outcome is one they really can't live with. In this case the proposer, decision facilitator and objector should discuss whether it may be best to revert to a normal major decision process, or whether to continue negotiations in this way. Consensus may be checked with a webpoll if it is not clear that consensus has been achieved.

    13. If consensus has been reached at the workshop/meeting, and no concerns of this kind are raised, the decision is passed as of the end of this seven day period.

    14. If consensus has not been reached, it reverts to Step 2 with a new workshop or discussion or to a general major decision.

    15. If significant concerns are raised with the meeting outcome, or subsequent outcomes (as assessed by the Decision-making Group) then the process reverts to a general or urgent Major Decision, as appropriate.

    16. Implementation of the decision as per the proposal.

    Site-Selection Decision Process

    This is a two stage process involving two decisions: the selection of a site and the approval of a concept design for a provisionally selected site. The first decision needs to be passed in order to proceed to the second.

    Consensus or majority vote is not the basis for the decision but rather a threshold number of households (fifteen) committed to buying in.

    Therefore, this entire process will run for the first decision (Do you intend to buy into this site?) and when the concept design is ready, it will run again for the second decision (Do you intend to buy into this site as represented by this design?).

    The site will be considered to have been selected by the Urban Coup if a minimum of fifteen households say “Yes, I'm in” (A) to both questions.

    At the start of this process, it is assumed that phases 1 to 4 of the general process (see General Process for Decision-making for the Proposer above), which include an appropriate level of discussion/research (e.g. completion of a site matrix), have been undertaken prior to the Proposal being put forward. It is also assumed that in the case of approving a concept design, a thoroughly inclusive process will have taken place to produce the concept design.

    1. The Proposer completes a Proposal Template and notifies the Decision-making Group that a Site Selection Decision will be required shortly. A Decision Facilitator will be nominated by the Decision-making Group to assist coordinating the process. The Proposer will go through the relevant check list, with assistance from the Facilitator if required.

    2. The Decision Facilitator arranges a special meeting to discuss the proposal with at least three days' notice.

    3. The Proposer notifies members via the internal website of the proposal that is to be tabled at this special meeting on the relevant date and provides the link to the Proposal. These notifications should be titled “Site Selection Decision – [Proposal Title]” or similar and be sent at least three days before the meeting.

    4. Members are expected to attend the meeting to engage in the discussion. If a member who wants input is unable to attend the relevant meeting, it is expected that (s)he will inform another member who is attending of his/her views to act as a proxy or provide his/her comments in writing to the Chair to present to the group for consideration at the meeting (this may be via the internal website). To submit a proxy, members should use the forms at Appendices 4 and 5.

    5. During the meeting:

      1. The Proposer explains the proposal and answers any questions to clarify the proposal.

      2. A discussion of the proposal is then facilitated by the Chair or Decision Facilitator. The Chair or Decision Facilitator or Proposer or proxy will also present any material supplied by individuals unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of this discussion is to negotiate and note amendments required to be made to the proposal in order for as many members as possible to be able to 'live with' the proposed site (and design), and to bring to the surface all the knowledge, concerns and ideas that will help households to make their choice. The Decision Facilitator will ensure that the minute-taker has captured all necessary points for members not present to understand the directions taken, including clarifications, concerns and any additional pros and cons (that are not already listed in the proposal). All action items are to be recorded in the minutes (e.g. that the Proposer is to amend the proposal to include a particular element).

      3. The standing action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate the questions, responses, concerns and additional pros and cons raised and include them in the Proposal Package (as a separate document or blog entry titled “Responses to Proposal X”). If no additional points were raised, the document or blog entry should still be created with “Nil additional points raised as a result of discussion at meeting on x date" (or similar). This must be posted within 24 hours of the meeting, and preferably directly after the meeting.

      4. If the only action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate and add the responses, the Decision Facilitator should ask the attendees: “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon in its current form?” or “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon once the additional comments and/or minor matters are addressed/amended/included?" The outcome of this question will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator.

        Note: This is not making the decision about the proposal but is to identify whether the proposal is ready to be decided on or requires tabling for further discussion.

      5. If there is consensus that the proposal is ready to be decided upon in its current form, or with minor amendments/inclusions, then the Decision Facilitator asks everyone present to register their position verbally or by a show of hands. The outcome of this will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator. See also Step 9 below.

      6. The options for expressing a household’s position in a site-selection decision are different from other decision processes. They are:

      A. Yes, I’m in.

      B. I’m not sure I can commit to this site now.

      C. No, I’m not in for this site.

      1. The results of this discussion and the Proposal Package, including the “Responses to Proposal”, are to be on the internal website for no less than three days. During these three days the discussion can continue via the internal website and/or additional special meetings, of which all members are notified by phone/text message (at least 24 hours ahead of the meeting).

        1. Actions, if any, are to be undertaken. If the proposal itself is to change significantly in meaning or effect (as agreed by the group), the original proposal should be clearly marked as “No Longer Current” and a new version should be produced with the amendments. The original is to be kept as part of the package so that everyone can follow the progress. Alternatively, minor modifications may be documented by tracking changes in the same post / document or generally on the internal website if more practical and easy to understand. The decision then goes to a web poll.

      2. Site selection decision poll function:

        1. The poll is to clearly state the opening and closing date for decision preferences to be submitted. This period must be at least three days (to be determined by proposer and decision facilitator) with reference to the timeline required to secure the site if agreed.

        2. The Proposer is to notify member households via the internal website that a proposal is to be responded to and provide the links to the Proposal Package and the Major decision poll. These notifications should be titled “Site Selection Decision – [Proposal Title] – Poll closes [date]” or similar.

        3. Members are limited to registering one vote per household (i.e. households to identify their vote as a whole and register this in response to the poll via their household representative/unit membership holder).

        4. All households who have not registered their preference will be called by the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution working group or their delegates 24 hours prior to the closing of the poll and reminded that if they do not register their preference, there is a risk for a high potential site to be lost.

        5. After the poll has closed, any member who has not registered a preference will be called again and, depending on the time constraints and financial commitments required by the particular site proposal, may be assumed to have selected 'C', as the decision about selecting a site requires members to opt in.

      3. The Decision Facilitator will report the tally on the internal website and record the outcome of the poll on the Decision Log.

      Important Decision Process

      This process involves reaching consensus with a self-identified group of interested parties, because the impact of the decision is not as significant as a Major Decision and yet it needs to be declared and transparent.

      What is meant by ‘self-identified group’ is that the whole membership of the Urban Coup is invited, but not obligated or expected, to participate. Whoever wants to participate opts in by attending meetings, providing input on the website and voting at the relevant meeting or through a proxy.

      At the start of this process, it is assumed that phases 1 to 4 of the general process (see General Process for Decision-making for the Proposer above), which include an appropriate level of discussion/research, has been undertaken prior to the Proposal being put forward.

      1. The Proposer completes a Proposal Template and uses the relevant check list to record the process, with assistance from the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Working Group, if required.

      2. The Proposer requests from the Chair the date of the next regular meeting at which there is time to discuss the proposal. The Proposer notifies the members via the internal website that a proposal is to be tabled at the meeting on the relevant date and provides the link to the Proposal Package. These notifications should be titled “Important Decision – [Proposal Title]” or similar and be sent at least seven days before the meeting.

      3. The agenda should ideally go out at least three days before the meeting. Members who are interested in the proposal are expected to attend the meeting to engage in the discussion.

      4. If a member is unable to attend the relevant meeting, it is expected that (s)he may arrange for another member who is attending to act as a proxy or provide his/her comments to the Chair to present to the group for consideration at the meeting (this may be via the internal website). To submit a proxy, members should use the forms at Appendices 4 and 5.

      5. During the meeting:

        1. The Proposer explains the proposal and answers any questions to clarify the proposal.

        2. A discussion of the proposal is then facilitated by the Chair or the Decision Facilitator. The Chair or Decision Facilitator or Proposer or proxy will also present any material supplied by individuals unable to attend the meeting. The purpose of this discussion is to negotiate and note amendments required to be made to the proposal in order to reach consensus. The Decision Facilitator will ensure that the minute-taker has captured all necessary points for members not present to understand the directions taken, including clarifications, concerns and any additional pros and cons (that are not already listed in the proposal).

        3. If a concern is that is raised is complex or the person raising the concern considers that (s)he is unable to accurately articulate his/her concerns at the meeting, (s)he can nominate to reply to the proposal on the internal website within an articulated time frame deemed appropriate by the members present.

        4. Any action items are to be recorded in the minutes (e.g. that Person X is to submit concerns in the next week or that the Proposer is to amend the proposal to include a particular element).

        5. The standing action item for the Decision Facilitator is to collate and include in the Proposal Package the concerns and additional pros and cons raised (as a separate document titled “Responses to Proposal X”). If no additional points were raised, the document or blog entry should still be created with “Nil additional points raised as a result of discussion at meeting on x date."

        6. If the only action item is for the Decision Facilitator to collate and add the responses, the Decision Facilitator should ask the attendees: “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon in its current form?” or “Does everyone agree to this proposal being decided upon once the additional comments and/or minor matters are addressed/amended/included?" The outcome of this question will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator.

          Note: This is not making the decision about the proposal but is to identify whether the proposal is ready to be decided on at a meeting or requires tabling for further discussion.

        7. If there is consensus that the proposal is ready to be decided upon in its current form, or with minor amendments/inclusions, then the Decision Facilitator tests for consensus by asking everyone present to register their preference (A. I agree, B. I can live with this, C. I don't mind and trust the group to make this decision or D. I can't live with this the way it is) verbally or by a show of hands. The outcome of this will also be recorded by the Decision Facilitator. See also Step 9 below.

      6. The Proposal Package, including the “Responses to Proposal”, are to be on the internal website for no less than seven days (members may request a longer time period to consider the proposal if a reason is given). If people want to respond via the internal website to the proposal, a summary of their pro point, con point or concern should be put in the “Responses to Proposal”. The internal website or other communication tools should be used during this period to further explore or discuss the issue to identify resolutions or opportunities. If consensus has been reached at the initial meeting, this period is a confirmation period. If no further concerns are raised, the decision is considered passed as of the end of this seven day period (unless further time has been requested).

      7. Actions, if any, are to be undertaken. If the proposal itself is to change significantly in meaning or effect, the original proposal should be clearly marked as “No Longer Current” and a new version should be produced with the amendments. The original is to be kept as part of the package so that everyone can follow the progress. Alternatively, modifications may be documented by tracking changes in a document or generally on the internal website if more practical and easy to understand.

      8. If the proposal was amended or further discussion was required, Step 2 is to be repeated. This implies setting up and notifying members of the new meeting and including the original version and its response in the Proposal Package. The new version will also be in the new proposal template with a separate “Responses to Proposal X Version 2”, if applicable. The Decision Facilitator is to present the responses submitted via the Responses to Proposal if the relevant people are not present at the meeting. If the proposal is ready to be decided upon (i.e. no one is seeking further discussion), then it is to be added to the next agenda with the Proposal Package included as a link. As with the initial meeting, it is expected that members who are interested in the proposal should attend the meeting, arrange a proxy, submit their comments in the Responses to Proposal document or write to the Chair or Decision Facilitator. To submit a proxy, members should use the forms at Appendices 4 and 5.

      9. During this meeting:

        1. The proposer will give a brief outline of the proposal being decided upon.

        2. There is opportunity for any further discussion if necessary. This discussion will be minuted and if additional points are raised, these should be recorded by the Decision Facilitator. If new points of significance are being raised that could change the nature of the proposal, the process reverts to Step 2 again.

        3. If it appears that agreement can be reached, the Chair is to ask for people to indicate their preferences in accordance with the Decision Preferences. This can be done through a show of hands for each Decision Preference option:

          A. I agree

          B.I can live with this

          C. I trust the group to make this decision

          D. I can't live with this the way it is.

        4. The proposal will be considered “agreed to” if nobody registers a D. Any person registering a 'D' is indicating their willingness to engage with the Proposer to develop a resolution that (s)he, the Proposer and the members of the Urban Coup could agree to.

        5. The Decision Facilitator will record the preferences provided. This is to be posted to the internal website and a three day confirmation period follows in which the decision is considered passed (if nothing further is raised). However, if at the second meeting discussion the proposal has changed significantly (as per Step 8.2.), the process reverts to Step 2.

      10. If an agreement cannot be reached after two successive meetings (and discussion between), consideration should be made as to whether the decision would be more appropriately addressed through the Major decision model. Consideration can also be made as to whether the decision can also be made through majority poll.

        Note: At any meeting or otherwise by request (via the Decision Facilitator) an Important decision can be escalated to a Major decision and the processes already undertaken may be considered to have been part of a Major decision process if appropriate as assessed by the Decision Facilitator.

      11. Final decision: A proposal that has been agreed to in a meeting is to be updated by the Decision Facilitator with the outcome of the meeting decision and any additional comments that were raised in the meeting. This is to remain in the internal website for no less than seven days (if only one meeting was required) or three days (if two meetings have been required) so that there is a final opportunity for anyone to raise an objection.

      12. Implementation of the decision as per the proposal.

      Minor Decision Process

      This type of decision may be made by a working group without extensive consultation with the larger Urban Coup.

      1. As for any other decision process, the proposers (individual or group) must do their homework and liaise with other members or their specific working group to test or discuss the proposition. This includes rising it at a regular meeting or discussing with the Decision Facilitator to confirm that it is a minor decision (if in doubt).

      2. The decision is made. The aim is to reach consensus among the members.

        ">
      3. If it is considered to be valuable to have the decision recorded officially, then the proposer(s) should ensure that it is added to the Decision Log, including a link to a page that details the reasons behind the decision (the use of the proposal template is not mandatory). This adds transparency to the decision making and can prompt discussion and engagement from other Coup members.

      4. Notifications should be issued through the General group in the internal website about the Minor Decision. These notifications should be titled “Minor Decision – [Decision Title] – Logged [date]” or similar.

      5. After posting a decision, it is recommended to be flexible in receiving responses from others and, wherever possible, to not act on the decision for at least seven days so that others can access the decision and raise any concerns.

      6. If a member disagrees with the decision and through discussion there is not possibility of reaching a resolution or consensus, (s)he may request to a Decision Facilitator to have the Minor decision escalated to an Important or Major decision (as applicable).

      7. The proposer or a member within a working group who have made a Minor decision may choose to escalate it to a more inclusive decision at any time.

      Appendix 1: Simplified Guide to Decision-making Process

      Major Decision

      Important Decision

      Minor Decision

      A decision that will significantly affect the running, organisation, reputation, design or development of the Urban Coup (including people, structures and landscape) or any matter requiring financial or legal responsibility (except where the financial commitment falls within the Finance, Banking and Payments Working Group responsibilities).

      A decision that may affect the running of the Urban Coup, but not significantly, requiring a declared, transparent and accountable process to and involves reaching consensus with a self-selected group of interested parties.

      Often implementations of matters previously agreed through a Major or Important decision.

      Identify issue, Research, Discuss, Including on website

      Identify issue, Research, Discuss, Including on website

      Identify, Research, Discuss

      Proposal Form

      • Complete proposal template.

      • Notify decision-making and conflict resolution group which will nominate a facilitator to assist.

      • Notify chair and members by putting item on agenda at least 7 days ahead.

      • Post proposal on website in the General group as a notebook, with word document attached, if applicable, at least 7 (3) days before meeting.

      • Link with a discussion blog (pre-existing, or start new) and any other relevant documents.

      Web discussion may lead to modification of proposal. Completed proposal documents and any modifications need to be available on website at least seven days before meeting.

      Consensus

      • Within working group / interested parties.

      • Can be escalated.

      Meeting Discussion 1

      Interested parties should attend, send a proxy or speak to decision facilitator to contribute to discussion at meeting.

      After discussion, if only minor modifications are recommended, the decision facilitator (re)states decision to be taken and ask whether those at meeting agree the proposal is ready to be put to members in a form likely to achieve consensus. Note: This is to approve wording, not proposal itself.

      Decision Log Record Posted on web site at the discretion of the proposer.

      Responses to Proposal

      • Decision facilitator records points raised in discussion such as questions and answers, additional Pro/Cons. If none, records “Nil additional points raised at meeting on x date”.

      • Then, open proposal notebook, and paste the 2nd (version at beginning. Attach word document with all versions, most recent first.

      • Add links to relevant discussions, documents, sites etcetera.

      Feedback

      • Other members may respond.

      • May be escalated.

      Poll for Major Decision:

      • The Proposer creates poll, on internal web-site, with notification to all members. This poll is open for 7 days.

      • Decision Facilitator sends reminder 2 to 3 days before end of poll.

      • If no response after one week, a member’s preference assumed to be 'C' (I trust the group to make this decision).

      Meeting Discussion 2 for Important Decision

      • Interested parties should attend, send proxy to meeting or speak to decision facilitator to contribute to discussion at meeting.

      • Chair to ask whether decision can be made or further discussion is necessary. If the latter, proceed as for meeting 1.

      Hold important decision poll by show of hands for A to D preferences. Include proxies.

       

      Major Decision Consensus:

      • If consensus achieved (no ‘D’: “I can’t live with this” preferences from poll), record result in original document, proposal note-book and decision log.

      • If any Ds are registered, record results in original document and proposal notebook; process repeated with those members working towards consensus with the proposer.

      Important Decision Consensus:

      If consensus achieved, log results including proxies.

      If not, repeat process or consider escalating to major decision.

      Confirmation Stage of three to seven days on the internal website.

      Record result in original document, proposal notebook and (eventually) decision log.

       

      Vote: only if consensus process fails twice

      • Website, poll of households, 75% majority not voting 'D' required to pass.

       

       

       

      Appendix 2: Proposal Template

      Please, for any new proposal use the form.

      Proposal title:

       

      Decision Category:

      Major – Urgent – Site-selection – Face-to-face - Important

      Date:

      Original Proposal:

      Revised Proposal:

      Revised Proposal:

      Decision timeline:

      For discussion at meeting on:

      To go to poll on:

      Poll closes:

       

      Decision proposed by:

       

      Decision Facilitator:

       

      For more information, contact:

       

      Background:

       

      Costs of this decision if

      implemented:

       

       

      Alternatives to this decision:

       

       

      Pros

      Cons

       

       

      Links:

       

      Responses to Proposal:

       

      Decision to be made:

       

      Decision result:

       

      Implementation procedure:

       

      Appendix 3: Decision Proposal Checklist: Major Decision

      This checklist is to help guide the proposer of a decision through the process, and to document that process for future reference. The Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group can assist you with this process.

      So, you’ve identified that a decision needs to be made by the Urban Coup…

      Step 1: Starting out

      • I’ve raised my idea at an Urban Coup meeting to brainstorm a way forward, or have discussed with others informally.

      • I’ve contacted the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group and worked out the timeline and roles for this decision (Decision Facilitator has their own checklist).

      • With a Decision Facilitator or at a regular meeting, I’ve gone through the decision-making flowchart to determine what kind of decision this is and it has been identified as major (general).

      Step 2: Creating the proposal

      • I’ve identified with the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group and/or chair when is the next regular meeting when we can have the first formal discussion.

      • I’ve made sure the discussion of the proposal is on the agenda for that meeting.

      • I’ve used the decision proposal template (major decision) to create a proposal and uploaded it to the website, with at least one week left before that meeting, and flagged that it will be raised at that meeting.

      Step 3: Finalising the proposal

      • We’ve had the meeting and I’ve made any changes required.

      • If necessary, we’ve had another meeting to discuss further.

      • It’s now ready to go to poll.

      Step 4: The poll

      • I’ve uploaded the final proposal and noted there will be a poll in no less than 7 days.

      • I (or the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group) have created the poll and notified all Urban Coup members via the internal website.

      • 2-3 days before the poll closes, I (or the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group) have sent a reminder to all Urban Coup members via the website.

      • The poll has closed and I (or the Decision-making and Conflict Resolution Group) have noted the result in the proposal and saved in the decision log.

      Appendix 4: Proxy Form (general)

      The Urban Coup Inc - NOTICE APPOINTING A PROXY

      I, _____________________________________ (Name)

      of _____________________________________ (Address)

      being a full member of The Urban Coup Inc.

      appoint ____________________________________ (Name)

      of _____________________________________ (Address)

      being a full member of The Urban Coup Inc., as my proxy to vote for me on my behalf at the Meeting of the Urban Coup Inc. to be held on

      _____________________________ (Date) regarding the Decision Proposal:

      __________________________________________.

      My proxy is authorised to vote as:

      A. I agree

      B. I can live with this

      C. I trust the group to make this decision

      D. I can't live with this the way it is


       

      Comments (please include any conditions relating to the preference above, or any information required or views to be expressed, or any other information you wish to be made known on your behalf):

      _________________________________________________________

      _________________________________________________________

      _________________________________________________________

      _________________________________________________________


       

      SIGNED: _____________________________

      DATED: _____________________________